S.S. Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) Kishori Lal petitioner was brought to trial and convicted under section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, vide his judgment dated the 10th of June, 1976. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge after adverting to the specific contention raised on behalf of the petitioner repelled all of them and has maintained the conviction and sentence.
(2.) On the 23rd of July, 1974, Dr. K. C. Jain in the presence of Dr. Sadhu Ram took a sample out of 7 kilograms of Laddoos kept by the petitioner at his shop. Subsequent chemical analysis of the same vide Exhibit P.D., the report of the Public Analyst, indicated that the same was adulterated. In support of its case the prosecution put into the witness-box P. W. 1 Dr. K. C. Jain, and P. W. 2 Dr. Sadhu Ram. The petitioner sought to deny the prosecution allegations and took the stand that it was a false case and examined D W. 1 Baggu Ram, D. W. 2 Harbans Lal and D.W. 3 Ram Rakha in defence.
(3.) On behalf of the petitioner the hackneyed argument that no independent evidence was forthcoming to support the prosecution case has been raised. It deserves only to be noticed and rejected in view of the concurrent findings of the Courts below against the petitioner on the point. At best it suffices to mention that P. W. 2 Dr. Sadhu Ram cannot possibly be labelled as in any way partisan or interested. It is the common case that neither Dr. K. C. Jain nor Dr. Sadhu Ram have any axe to grind against the petitioner or have any animus or bias which could possibly motivate them to depose on oath against the petitioner in categoric terms. I would affirm the acceptance of the prosecution evidence by the two Courts below.;